Saturday, July 10, 2010

Feminism is not sexism on Opposite Day.

Feminists do not want to see men degraded.Feminists do not have a fixed idea of men's "proper role" in the family or in life.Feminists do not want to see a Senate that's 83% women, or a corporate leadership that's 85% female.Feminists do not want men to be paid less than women, or receive fewer career opportunities.Feminists do not fetishize men's bodies while ignoring their minds.Feminists do not condone or excuse violence against men.Feminists do not want men to lose their access to family planning and healthcare.Feminists do not want to erode men's control over their own bodies and lives.Feminists do not want to teach young boys to be submissive and passive.Feminists do not demand men be constantly sexually appealing and available, then shame them when they are.Feminists do not describe men as less intelligent, or more emotional, or as somehow different from humans in their thought processes.

Feminists want to give to women, not to take from men.

(Please note that the counterpoint to all these things is "sexists," not "men.")

81 comments:

Thank you, Holly. I think it's also worth mentioning that arguing for 'gender rights' as opposed to 'womens rights' is kind of absurd when there hasn't been any history of male opression in our culture, or in any culture I can think of. Maybe in some theoretical, sci-fi future, but right now it's kind of ridiculous, and there are no shortage of policy makers who are out to defend male interests. It's like the old joke about "why isn't there a mens' history month?".

@Anon: Those are "female supremacists". Most of them call themselves "feminists" as well, but they tend to be looked down upon by most other feminists. Also, their presence is inflated far out of proportion to their actual numbers: a handful of attention-grabbing loudmouths who get turned into a straw-woman caricature that gets tossed around like a boogeywoman.

Of course, there are also women out there are abusive jerks, just like there are men who are abusive jerks. That doesn't make them especially feminist nor non-feminist. "Ooh my godz I knowz a few wimminz who want equal pay but are rude to meeee all feminists are teh evil lolz" ...silly whiners.

And even if all feminists were female supremacists, them getting their way wouldn't make things any worse than they are now. Especially since, contrary to what some may expect, about half of them are *men*.

If you cannot see that "giving to women" is a poor, bigoted imitator of "gender equality", made acceptable only by the happenstance of historical female oppression, then presumably you are also incapable of understanding why "black supremacy" is an unacceptably racist ideology, made acceptable by the happenstance of historical black oppression.

It's response bigotry.

Discrimination of any kind of bullshit, and Feminism is, unashamedly, a doctrine of discrimination. It focuses only on women, elevates only women, and if you believe that this is, in any way, better than discriminating against only men, elevating only men, then you've undertaken the fucktarded assumption that it's ok for women to do something that would get men put in prison.

Be content with striving for GENDER equality. If you're not secure enough or advanced enough in your belief to strive for GENDER equality, and allow your ideology to naturally shift focus to men or women on a case-by-case basis, then you're a bigot.

Anon - Corrected Version:SOME feminists do not want to see men degraded.This is true in the same literal sense as "SOME Republicans believe the Earth orbits the sun"--it's technically correct, but the few dissenters do not represent the constituency or beliefs of the party particularly well.

Ashur - I have two friends, Jamie and Pat. Jamie has $100 and Pat has $10. I wish for my friends to be equally wealthy. Therefore, I'm going to give more money to Pat, not because I'm favoring Pat or I hate Jamie, but because that's the only way to make them equal.

While femenism serves an important purpose, I don't think it's altogether wise to reject the notion of "gender equality", especially in the longterm.

I think that it's important for both sides of the coin to be examined. For femenism to be compare/contrasted to, um, "masculanism", or an equivalent.

While it's obvious to anyone that women have faced/do face far more overt discrimination than men, I don't think this diminishes the need to examine the other side. Men as a whole also live with double standards and more subtle, but nonetheless still significant social contraints. Even more significant than one would think at face value, I'd say, because they're largely left ignored and unexamined.

There's no equilibrium there.

As an example, I'd point out that while in the last century socially acceptable gender expression for females has progressed with leaps and bounds to accept a wide range of expressions, (straight) male gender expression has narrowed it's standards.

While career opportunities/activities traditionally viewed as "male" have been opened to women with the femenist movement, men taking on traditionally "female" type activities is still -more- stigmatized than the opposite.

"We've begun to raise daughters more like sons, but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters." ~Gloria Steinem

There's sexism against women in that, but men are also the affected party, and I don't think that should be ignored.

Ashur - I have two friends, Jamie and Pat. Jamie has $100 and Pat has $10. I wish for my friends to be equally wealthy. Therefore, I'm going to give more money to Pat, not because I'm favoring Pat or I hate Jamie, but because that's the only way to make them equal.

Yes I do, but clearly you don't.

Let's create an analogy. Rather than 'feminism', we are going to create a new doctrine which came into being when Pat was poorer than Jamie. This doctrine is called "Pattism", and it holds that Pat requires liberation from Jamie, and fights for this cause. Pattism leads to this;

Monday: "Let's check their wallets today...Pat has $10 and Jamie has $100. I am going to give Pat $10."Tuesday: "Let's check their wallets today....Pat has $400 and Jamie has $80. I am going to give Pat $10."

Like Feminism, because Pattism was created as a response to the monetary oppression of Pat, it is inherently designed to combat Pat's disadvantage. But Pat's disadvantage is transitory; unlike the doctrine of Pattism is changes, and on some days Jamie is actually poorer than she is. But because Pattism is a doctrine of Pat-liberation, it will always see Pat as the disadvantaged one.

However let's imagine another ideology. This one is called "Monetary Equality". This doctrine wasn't created specifically to liberate Pat, but recognized that equality was the ideal, not equalizing Pat and Jamie. Logically this gives rise to the following;

Monday: "Let's check their wallets today...Pat has $10 and Jamie has $100. I am going to give Pat $90. This makes Pat and Jamie equal."Tuesday: "Let's check their wallets today....Pat has $400 and Jamie has $80. This isn't the same as yesterday. This time Pat is the one with more money. I am going to give $320 dollars to Jamie."

Is this so hard to fathom? It can't be, seeing as you yourself said precisely what it was that I was trying to tell you to say; that we have to ignore the "Femi" part of feminism and focus on equality. But people don't ignore the "Femi" part of feminism.

Feminist theory IS one of female liberation. This works fine, as women were oppressed, but it's a toxic and ignorant theory. It might sometimes stagger onto the path of creating more equality, but this is arbitrary; when its religious need to believe women are always oppressed lines up with societal circumstance it happens to do good. But like all ignorant doctrines (think the Catholic Church doing all that charity work then spreading misinformation about condoms; it's precisely the same reasoning) it can just as readily line up with societal circumstance in a bad way, and lead to the spreading of misinformation and lies that harm the cause of gender inequality.

And as much as you tell me I'm not getting it, the fact is I am; it's you who can't seem to get your head around the fact that favoring one gender over another, even if you consider that gender "oppressed", is sexist bullshit.

And that's what it comes down to; justifying actually focusing on women, not in equality itself. That is the mistake of feminism, that is why it is seeped in ignorance and nothing you have said has gone towards logically addressing it, and in fact you've precisely confirmed what I am talking about by having to re-name feminism to distinguish the group within it who actually want equality and the group within it who follow the doctrine to the letter and fight exclusively for female liberation.

Even more significant than one would think at face value, I'd say, because they're largely left ignored and unexamined.

Then why aren't more men examining and tackling these subjects? If they are really that interested in putting a stop to the inequality that does exist for them (and I agree that it does) then it's the job of men to start raising the issues, not feminists.

That's what really galls me. I will quite happily discuss how sexism also affects men, so long as the men involved are pulling their weight, and not trying to pass it off onto the feminists as something else they need to take on, lest they be called "man haters" if they refuse.

Also, if it's being used as a silencing tactic then they can shut the fuck up in that instance, too.

I have to point out that male and female opression, while both exist and are significant problems, are hardly on equal footing.

If anyone ever read "Opression" by Marilyn Frye, it's an excellent article. I read it a looong time ago, but as a quick summary, it explores the idea of a "double-bind" opression of women, as opposed to the single-faceted opression of men.

Men who conform to the standards set about masculine behavoir are rewarded. Men who don't, are opressed.

Women who conform to the standards set about feminine behavoir are often ridiculed for the fact. Women who act stereotypically feminine (idecisive, helpless, etc.) are often penalized for this fact.

However, women who don't conform are -also- opressed, but in the more visible way you tend to hear about more in the femenist movement.

There's my quick, clumsy summary.

Despite all this, I still think it's important to examine critically how men and women are opressed -in tandem-.

Ashur, your attitude towards the concept of femenism is very bitter and borderline hateful, even though you do have your points. I hardly see how this is productive. Opression of the female gender -is- important to fight, as well as the opression of the male gender. They're seperate concepts, but they should be examined and fought against together.

Your hostility is counter productive to that, in the same way that femenists that are hostile towards men, or even believe that men aren't opressed, are counter productive.

Also, if it's being used as a silencing tactic then they can shut the fuck up in that instance, too.

That's it. Feminism can be criticised as sexist, because it is sexist, which presents a huge problem with its the champion of equality.

It is undoubtedly women who need liberating, but because Feminism only works towards this end out of a happy coincidence, and is actually blind to the other gender, it can be criticized as ignorant because it is ignorant.

The same cannot be said for focusing on actual equality between human beings. This could not be criticized as favoring one gender because it isn't, and if it replaced the clown-like idiocy of Feminism, which includes everyone ranging from Holly to Twisty Faster.

As a silencing tactic it's stupid, I agree. In fact, I think the current "male opression" movement less than I like femenism, which I'm just slightly hesitant about.

I think that men and women should work on tackling both opressions together, and I think that's really how any real progress to be made. A "okay, you girls fight sexism in this corner, and you guys fight male oppression in this corner" is an attitude that I don't understand. It seems to me an arrangement that would breed a lot of "my oppression is worse that yours!" debates, which are fruitless, and and stupid, and aren't going to get anyone anywhere.

I'd argue that gender discrimination cannot bee so cleanly divided, in any case. A lot of the time looking at if from a "okay, how is this opressive to women" femenist angle you don't really get the entire picture, and it'd be the same vice versa. Actions taken from these perspectives are at best half-thought out.

I don't think gender discrimination should be approached with a "it's your problem". I think "it's our problem, now let's work together to fix it" is more useful.

Then again, what I'm proposing is highly idealistic, and I realize this. *shrug* I'm still really trying to decide where I stand on femenism, anyway.

Sasha said..."I think that men and women should work on tackling both opressions together"I am not sure there is any male oppression in the world. There are oppressed males, but I am not sure there's any men who are oppressed because they are men anywhere.

If you have been reading Holly's blog for even a small amount of time and sincerely believe that she in any way is advocating the kind of thinking in your first example, then you are beyond help.

If you can read a number of posts arguing that people like Holly are not actually pro-female liberation, but are actually pro-gender equality which is at odds with feminism then....well, you're retarded or you didn't bother to read any of my posts.

Ashur, feminism is "the group dealing with gender equality." It's called feminism because when it got started women were the more oppressed ones. The name is a historical accident. It's a bit silly to claim that you oppose them because of the name.

99% of feminists support gender equality, including nearly all mainstream feminists. I suggest that the taking-Twisty-seriously end be called "shitheads," so as to prevent confusion.

I suggest that Ashur entertain himself by annoying people who claim to be "feminists" and are actually not just shitheads, but think that the shitheads don't go far enough. They actually deserve to be bothered.

At this juncture, I would like to direct everyone to Ashur's excellent blog, which will tell you all you need to know about this smart, smart, smart man and his tremendous innate superiority to all you sheeple. He's one of those infuriating people who's glommed on to "skepticism" as a way to look down on anyone who believes anything, without remembering the part where you occasionally question yourself.

This is what Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" has wrought. Bunch of kids who think smugness and yelling obviate the need for research and reflection, and they don't even do magic tricks. (Key symptoms: uncritical worship of Richard Dawkins, dismissal of thousands of years of theological scholarship and debate because lol invisible sky man, insistence that "being smart" is more important than actually learning things, insistence that they're smarter than all the "sheeple" despite a remarkable lack of evidence.)

I like Penn & Teller--they're funny and talented and actually have a lot of thoughtfulness and respect for, even love of humanity--but I'll never forgive them for spawning a million smugass Internet Atheists who think that disagreeing with everyone is the same as outwitting them.

At this juncture, I would like to direct everyone to Ashur's excellent blog, which will tell you all you need to know about this smart, smart, smart man and his tremendous innate superiority to all you sheeple.

You don't think you might be getting a bit too angry over what is essentially a simple point?

And you don't think that maybe it's a bit unfair, given how rigorously I defended myself (during which you completely validated what I was saying by changing the name of feminism for clarity), to chalk it down to "those silly skeptics".

Whilst you're accusing me of this and that, let's look at some of the symptoms you've exibited.

Holly said..."This is what Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" has wrought. Bunch of kids who think smugness and yelling obviate the need for research and reflection, and they don't even do magic tricks. (Key symptoms: uncritical worship of Richard Dawkins, dismissal of thousands of years of theological scholarship and debate because lol invisible sky man, insistence that "being smart" is more important than actually learning things, insistence that they're smarter than all the "sheeple" despite a remarkable lack of evidence.)"

Penn and Teller's bullshit is a good critical look at bullshit. I'm waiting for the Feminism episode.

I think I've actually done a post already on Richard Dawkins. And it might offend you, but thousands of years of theological debate can be reduced to "there's no man in the sky". Because there isn't.

"Being smart" is more important than learning? I'd say so far, given that you accidentally conceded my point, you've shown a pretty strong commitment to not updating your viewpoint.

I mean what do you want me to say? So far you've changed the name of Feminism for clarity, which is my entire argument, and you've repeatedly drawn a distinction between Feminism and actual gender equality.

From my perspective it looks critically like you've lost the plot numerous times, you agree with my completely but you've been faced with an opposing viewpoint that you can't refute so you've decided ad hominem is the way to go.

Is this what you want to do? Scream and bitch like a child because somebody told you that pro-woman is bigotry whereas pro-equality is enlightened?

I tend to use a lot of irony and analogies in my speech, and your tendency to take them literally or to just miss the point makes it very difficult for me to communicate with you. It's one thing to understand what I'm saying and disagree--it's another to think that I literally want to rename feminism.

(Also, mega points for playing the "I'm going to be massively provocative and infuriating and call you a cunt, now you lose because you got angry" game. The sport of kings.)

And it might offend you, but thousands of years of theological debate can be reduced to "there's no man in the sky". Because there isn't.OH MY GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING I'MA CALL ALL THE MAJOR CHURCHES AND PHILOSOPHERS RIGHT NOW AND LET THEM KNOW THEY WASTED A LOT OF TIME BECAUSE SOME FIFTEEN YEAR OLD COCKSUCKER FIGURED IT ALL OUT JUST LIKE THAT.

I am surprised that you've lost the plot so quickly Holly, I mean it's a fucking simple point isn't it; a doctrine that focuses only on women is toxic. A doctrine that considers men and women isn't.

This is so obvious to anyone of consciousness that I am cheapening it by defending it. You agree with me. You DO think men and women should be treated on a case-by-case basis. But this isn't feminism. And what's more you've got personal, which I think is a crying shame considering you did it before coming up with any counter arguments.

If you agree with me then agree with me. I think at this point you're just responding to my aggressive attitude.

Feminism is a fat load of hogwash. And so far everything you've said validates this idea. Now go and ignore my arguments and blame my entire viewpoint in a pair of stage magicians again. It was really fucking clever of you.

a doctrine that focuses only on women is toxic. A doctrine that considers men and women isn't.Feminism considers both men and women. It does consider, however, that at this point in history women need a lot more help. The fact that there aren't (too many) laws in the United States specifically restricting women does not mean that everything is hunky-dory.

Hell, even if everything were hunky-dory, feminism wouldn't be wrong, it would just be happier. Even if women were treated totally equally to men, supporting this treatment wouldn't somehow be obsolete.

You DO think men and women should be treated on a case-by-case basis. But this isn't feminism.Yes it is. I'm a feminist and I'm telling you this is feminism. There are other feminists here telling you that this is feminism.

Stop using "Feminism means trying to make women in charge of everything" as your only definition and arguing that anything else "isn't really feminism."

A brief lesson in Internet Flounces: when you throw up your hands, declare your opponent simply too stupid to be reasoned with, and exclaim that you're done with the debate, it's more effective if you just stop posting after that.

Anonymous said... "A brief lesson in Internet Flounces: when you throw up your hands, declare your opponent simply too stupid to be reasoned with, and exclaim that you're done with the debate, it's more effective if you just stop posting after that.

Tell me how to behave some more and see if I do what you say.

Holly said..."Feminism considers both men and women. It does consider, however, that at this point in history women need a lot more help."

No, it doesn't. Feminism does not consider men and women, and this is precisely my point.

You consider men and women, but Feminism is uniquely and, by definition, a doctrine that seeks to liberate only women.

There is no internal structure within Feminism that either does stand for men or is capable of recognizing male issues on a philosophical level.

This is not a problem of course, because males are not oppressed in any significant way, and when they are it has never been, to the knowledge of myself, by women, but has been gender-roles imposed on males by other males.

But Feminism is blind to this; individual feminists may care about gender equality, but Feminism itself is structurally incapable of dealing with male issues.

The reason Twisty Faster is still 'blaming the patriarchy' is because Feminism does blame the patriarchy. Not all branches, but the very fact that it has branches which also include the Society for Cutting Up Men should prove to you that it's time to completely disregard an ideology that has already become toxic and finally take the position that is unassailable; gender equality.

You are for gender equality, that is obvious, but you're throwing in with a group of people that includes those who aren't. You're like one of the Nazis trying to assassinate Hitler, or the white supremacist who can't justify hating black people to himself.

Admittedly your example is less extreme, but unlike Naziism and White Supremecy feminism has been fulfilling a useful function. But huge swathes of it are still very legitimately on board with the core tenet of feminism but are working against the goal of gender equality, because it has become toxic in the face of reduced female oppression (frankly, there is no institutional female oppression in the west. ALL sexism is human-level sexism, and I can promise you that idiocy is going nowhere).

What is the logical consequence of this? Instead of clinging to something that requires justification but can never be separated from extreme elements, and is sexist in the purest sense of the world, have the strength to admit that this isn't what you stand for; your position is one of gender equality.

Feminism is the theory that women require liberation. Gender equality, and dare I say equality itself, is the idea that all people require equality.

You are for gender equality, that is obvious, but you're throwing in with a group of people that includes those who aren't. Feminism "includes" Twisty Faster and the SCUM in the same way that that Christianity "includes" the Westboro Baptist Church--they may claim membership, but they're not the majority, they're not representative, and the huge number of sane members aren't particularly fond of them.

Feminism is the theory that women require liberation. Gender equality, and dare I say equality itself, is the idea that all people require equality.Women require liberation so that people can become equal.

Err... Holly... I don't think that's going to be a very effective argument to an atheist (or, more likely given his reactions, an antitheist) who probably *does* think Christians are evil because their ranks include the like of the Westboro Baptist Church. And Torquemada.

Feminism "includes" Twisty Faster and the SCUM in the same way that that Christianity "includes" the Westboro Baptist Church--they may claim membership, but they're not the majority, they're not representative, and the huge number of sane members aren't particularly fond of them.

Exactly. EXACTLY.

The westboro baptists are christians, and furthermore they adhere far more strictly to the Bible than the mainstream.

The Westboro Baptist church can exist because it is Christianity. It can exist because regular Christians don't follow the Bible (if they did they would have beliefs almost identical to the Westboro Baptists and other biblical literalists).

Christianity is impotent because both liberal people and yahoos are both equally Christian.

Similarly both you and Twisty Faster are equally feminist. She can exist because you claim to be following the same doctrine as her when you're not.

This is exactly my point. The logical thing to do is to recognize this critical difference, to recognize that you need to differentiate yourself from people like her and that it is, paradoxically, the existence of "feminists" that enable the existence of Feminists.

As the Quakers allow Fred Phelps and his cult, people like you enable Twisty Faster and the SCUM cult because you throw in with them, when actually you could not be any more different.

Women require liberation so that people can become equal. And that liberation can come from two places; actual equality or counter-sexism. This is the entire point. By throwing in with feminism you enable counter-sexism, and you have absolutely no statistics other than your say-so that the 'majority' are actually pro gender-equality. In fact if you are claiming to be representative of 'average' feminism then it means average feminists refuse to differentiate themselves from the maniacs.

This is precisely what I am saying needs to be done. It seems like you are perpetually validating my core point, and then suddenly going personal on me in absence of any disagreement.

Ashur, go home. You're not going to convince anyone. Either you're wrong, we're all too stupid to understand your point, or you're operating on a different set of subjective definitions from the rest of us. Either way, this isn't productive for anyone.

Um, Ashur, it's important to realize that there are some fucked up angry people out there, who will take an existing ideology and use it to support their world view. Sure Twisty Faster & co. are "feminists", but they are feminists with some extra crazy.

Because this is prevalent in most ideologies, whether social, political, or religious, it means that other people need to remember that the angry minority, while loud, is not representative of the whole.

Ashur, go home. You're not going to convince anyone. Either you're wrong, we're all too stupid to understand your point, or you're operating on a different set of subjective definitions from the rest of us. Either way, this isn't productive for anyone.

Hey, I've got an idea; why don't you shove a stick up your ass and try to control a conversation between two consenting adults that you have absolutely nothing to do with and without contributing anything!

What I often find amusing is how there are a lot of people out there these days who don't like calling themselves a feminist even though they mostly agree with feminism because either they don't think most feminists focus enough on men's rights as well, or because the term as used by the general public has become infected with bugaboo factors that don't accurately reflect the majority of people who actually call themselves "feminists". A small number of them have even proposed alternate terms like "gender equalists". Yet you almost never actually see them trying to promote such ideas or labels themselves.

Usually they just suggest it to those who are already heavily invested in the concept of feminism and then start throwing an immature fit when those feminists fail to see the light, like, instantly. When they could, you know, probably easily get allies among the large numbers of other people who also shrink away from the term "feminism". Why is this?

The Bible contains approximately four verses regarding the "God Hates Fags" aspect of religion as shown by Mr. Phelps. The Bible contains more than 300 verses about social justice and concern for the poor, which the Westboro Baptist church seems to care nothing about. It is completely, utterly, 100% wrong to argue that the Westboro Baptist Church is the true face of Christianity. Nothing in tradition, current popular opinion or the Bible even begins to suggest that.

As an atheist, I understand not really caring about religions (heck, the only reason I know that is because I had to pass religion class in Catholic school). But if you do, you really shouldn't try to have opinions about them.

Who cares what we call feminism, or whether feminists give a flying fuck about men's issues? Getting rid of gender stereotypes - a key part of feminism's agenda - would be of tremendous benefit to everyone. Being pressured to seem passive, cutesy, and weak is just as damaging to women as being pressured to seem strong and perpetually in control is to men.

So why with all the dissent? Feminists have issues they want to fix; fixing them would make things better for both men and woman; I'm not really seeing the problem here.

Holly, over here http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2010/07/dating-while-feminist-event.html I thanked you for talking about what feminism is. From the point of view of one of a class of confused bystanders you might be writing for, you have now responded to Ashur way more than enough. You seem to have already come to this conclusion, but I thought it might be nice to hear it explicitly.

"I like Penn & Teller--they're funny and talented and actually have a lot of thoughtfulness and respect for, even love of humanity--but I'll never forgive them for spawning a million smugass Internet Atheists who think that disagreeing with everyone is the same as outwitting them."

Oh Holly, I just clicked over to Ashur's blog and saw he's written other posts now. I thought the mention of Dawkin worship and claim to superior intellect was hyperbole on your part, but I see that it's not. It's verbatim!

But seriously: you can't have an argument when one person insists on making up their own definitions that can't be substantiated and proceeds to argue from them as though they're canon.

If you cannot see that "giving to women" is a poor, bigoted imitator of "gender equality", made acceptable only by the happenstance of historical female oppressionIf there were no sexism, feminism would be bad, therefore feminism is bad. Is that what you're saying?

I happen to disagree with the stated premise, but that aside, the conclusion doesn't follow from it. If there were no crime, police would be evil. If there were no sickness, surgeons would be monsters.

Your argument as I understand it, Ashur, is this:* If and when gender equality is achieved, feminism will continue trying to raise women.* Raising women, once gender equality has been achieved, will put women above men.* Raising women is inherently oppressive towards and sexist against men, now, even in the absense of gender equality.

I'm not clear on your basis for the first. You don't even really assert it in so many words, you take it as axiomatic. I suspect you are arguing at cross-purposes with eople who don't make that assumption. The third is, if not stupid, extraordinarily rigid. If you apply that logic to crossing the street, either you'll never get anywhere or you'll get hit by a bus, and that's no big loss either.

You're doing little to disprove that you're a high-school sophomore, possibly on the bright side, who's taking a philosophy class and just discovered feminism, probably in the library in books from the '80s. There's nothing specifically wrong with that, but consider that it may be a somewhat circumscribed viewpoint, and in a slightly to significantly different reality than most of the people here.

While it's obvious to anyone that women have faced/do face far more overt discrimination than men, I don't think this diminishes the need to examine the other sideI se no anti-masculism in anything Holly's said, no celebration or even acceptance of whatever oppression men face* the way anti-feminists celebrate or at least accept the oppression women face. I'm all in favor of masculism, in the abstract; I don't personally feel it's something I have motivation to give my own energy to, but I see nothing objectionable about the movement.

If you can read a number of posts arguing that people like Holly are not actually pro-female liberation, but are actually pro-gender equality which is at odds with feminism then....well, you're retarded or you didn't bother to read any of my posts.Ok, definition time: "atheist" means "person who thinks Ashur is an idiot." I know this is true because I'm an atheist and I think Ashur is an idiot. So, Ashur, you're an atheist, therefore you think you're an idiot, right? Remember, you can't call yourself an atheist without implicitly accepting my definition of "atheist."

If there were no sexism, feminism would be bad, therefore feminism is bad. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. If Naziism briefly served a useful function it would still be based on ignorance. This is true.

I happen to disagree with the stated premise, but that aside, the conclusion doesn't follow from it. If there were no crime, police would be evil. If there were no sickness, surgeons would be monsters.

Um. No? Idiot much? Why would the police be evil if there was no crime? They'd be doing nothing.If there was no sickness, surgeons wouldn't be operating on anyone. They'd not be evil.If there was no female oppression Feminism would still be fighting as if it there was.

Also you snuck the word "evil" in there. I actually said "ignorant" and said it would be ineffective.

Raising women is inherently oppressive towards and sexist against men, now, even in the absense of gender equality.

No. That's not my argument. My argument is not that it is sexist against men, but that it is ineffective at achieving gender equality because it fixates on women. Even in the case where women are oppressed, seeing oppression where there isn't any and missing oppression where there is results.

Notice how little Feminism is active in the middle east? If Feminism wasn't blind to some oppression and convinced other forms existed where it didn't, there'd not be a single feminism in the western world, because more women are living under much worse conditions in the middle east.

Isn't that exactly what my worldview would predict? I think so.

If and when gender equality is achieved, feminism will continue trying to raise women....I'm not clear on your basis for the first. You don't even really assert it in so many words, you take it as axiomatic.

You take it as axiomatic that it doesn't. I've cited examples already, such as the insistence that media is sexist and the vast anti-porn movement within Feminism; clear examples of 'fighting' oppression whilst successfully imposing more on women. Oppression of women, by women, because of Feminism.

You're doing little to disprove that you're a high-school sophomore, possibly on the bright side, who's taking a philosophy class and just discovered feminism, probably in the library in books from the '80s

Ad hominem ranting.

While it's obvious to anyone that women have faced/do face far more overt discrimination than men, I don't think this diminishes the need to examine the other side"

Um, I didn't post that.

I'm all in favor of masculism, in the abstract; I don't personally feel it's something I have motivation to give my own energy to, but I see nothing objectionable about the movement.

If you can't see what's wrong with "masculism" then it's no wonder you can't see what's wrong with "Feminism". Why not strive for gender equality and cover both the liberation of men and women without being sexist?

I know why. Because I think you're a high-school sophomore, possibly on the bright side, who's taking a philosophy class and just discovered feminism, probably in the library in books from the '80s.

Ok, definition time: "atheist" means "person who thinks Ashur is an idiot." I know this is true because I'm an atheist and I think Ashur is an idiot.

One difference. Feminism really IS about liberating women and that really IS my objection. Atheism has never been defined as anything other than "lack of a belief in a god".

Why does it seem like I am the only one who hasn't changed the definition?

Holly said...."Well... yes. That is the case. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me."

Seems unreasonable to me. Quite apart from any logic of the discussion in hand, I think the type of cunt who'd attempt to gang up on someone because of an opposing view, especially with someone who tried to oppress them just because they are worried you're perpetuating gender inequality is a fucked up and weak thing to do.

I think the "women are better" type of feminism is far more pervasive than people here think. For example, try reading Ursula K. Le Guin's "Always Coming Home" while keeping the idea in your head that men are as good as women. Next, look at some reviews and see how many mention the "women are better" attitude.

Considering the profound effects of androgens and estrogens on the functioning of the brain, equality of opportunity is not likely to lead to equality of results. Women and men are likely to both prefer different tasks and succeed differently in statistically noticeable ways.

That might explain 350 of the Fortune 500 CEOs being male, but not 488. Misogynist sexism is clearly a factor (I'd bet largely unacknowledged by the sexists).

CEOs and politicians do not represent talent rising to the top to me. They represent scum rising to the top. Politicians especially. If your job is based on telling people what to do, you have an automatic black mark against you in my book.

How much feminist energy is spent on getting women into the extremely dangerous, not tremendously profitable, and over 99% male field of high steel construction? How much should be? Why?

When equality is achieved in an area, many feminists do not stop pushing. There is still more spending on girl's educational programs and scholarships than boys, despite the fact that girls are now doing better in education than boys.

There are other places that women are clearly treated better. "Equitable distribution" in divorce being one. Self-defense pleas being another. Socially, how is a man treated if he runs from a fight? A woman?

Norah Vincent's "Self-Made Man" is an account of how a lesbian lived as a man for a year and a half, and it makes for a fascinating exploration of gender roles. It includes a lot of ways that society treats women better that are mostly unrecognized, as well as confirming many known ways men are treated better; and a lot of things that are just different, unclear who has it better.

Single-issue organizations work better. An individual could certainly be a feminist and also work towards more equitable treatment of men, but that isn't and shouldn't be what feminism is.

Sometimes with gender differences who's getting the short end of the stick depends greatly on individual point of view, feminist arguments on makeup being an obvious example. I can imagine feminists working to get women into high-steel construction as a male dominated field at the same time as MRAs work to get women in to do their share of the dying.

Right now MRAs tend to be a bunch of creepy cranks and lunatics, but that's pretty much my impression of the earliest feminists as well. I think cranks and lunatics tend to start just about any movement, good or bad.

The Firefox spelling checker is fine with androgens but doesn't like estrogens. Sexism? No, it's fine with oestrogens. Parochialism. :)

If Feminism wasn't blind to some oppression and convinced other forms existed where it didn't, there'd not be a single feminism in the western world, because more women are living under much worse conditions in the middle east.Gosh, you are 16, however old you are. You're not the first to think of that.

I've cited examples already, such as the insistence that media is sexist and the vast anti-porn movement within FeminismThere are people pointing to specific instances of sexism within the media, yes. Are you saying they're making it up, for whatever reason? There is porn that objectifies women, too. How does the fact that some feminists are anti-porn, and that feminists continue not to like sexism however much feminism has achieved so far, indicate that feminism has some goal other than equality?

Feminism really IS about liberating women and that really IS my objection.So you object to liberating women.

And now a line in case I want to respond to someone other than Ashur and it breaks his brain again.

Like Mousie, for instance:I think the "women are better" type of feminism is far more pervasive than people here think.It's not pervasive; it's loud. I would submit that, because of your history, you are particularly attuned--perhaps overly attuned--to people rnning with the notion that women are innocent and pure and men are horrible brutes, but I think most of that is done in the nae of misogyny, even if it's not called that.

There are other places that women are clearly treated better. "Equitable distribution" in divorce being oneThat's not quite as poor a definition as "feminism is a movement that fights against equality," but doesn't an equitable distribution favor neither party? What alternative do you propose?

Herschele, you may be right about "I would submit that, because of your history, you are particularly attuned--perhaps overly attuned". It's so hard to tell. As I said in the other thread, I used to think anyone who self-identified as a feminist thought women are better, because that's all I met and I met a lot. Now I know that's not the case, but I might indeed still be over attuned.

That's not quite as poor a definition as "feminism is a movement that fights against equality," It's not a definition at all. A definition would be "Feminism is a movement for the advancement of women"; I think it will stay necessary for the foreseeable future. However, I think there is also need now for a movement that promotes men. Just people will support or oppose one or the other (or both or neither) depending on the circumstance.

but doesn't an equitable distribution favor neither party? What alternative do you propose?

"Equitable distribution" (scare quotes intentional) typically takes from men to give to women. I see it as a pretty clear example of societal favoritism in that context, just as the 488 men in the top 500 CEOs is a clear example of the other way. I don't have a quick fix. It tends to be redistributive when the man makes more and proportional if the woman makes more; if, before marriage, John made $4x and Jane made $x, and that continued during marriage, Jane will likely get significantly more in the settlement than John, because Jane needs it more. If Jane made $4x and John made $x, Jane will still get at least 50%, because Jane made most of it. Divorce attorneys for men strive for 50% as the best possible outcome. It should not simply be proportional all the time; that would be grossly unfair to full-time homemakers, who are more commonly women. Like the CEO problem, there isn't a quick easy fair fix. I think it would be a good step if the higher earner got 50% at minimum.

You are not being ganged up upon. You have taken it upon yourself to post numerous, argumentative comments in a blog owned by someone else and frequented by a large number of regulars whose opinions are generally very different from your own. They all disagree with you. They expressed that disagreement. You're not being persecuted, here.

Here, have some of that logic you're so fond of:

1. Social justice movements focus on the people who are on the receiving end of injustice.

2. Women are on the receiving end of injustice.

3. Therefore, feminism should focus on women.

Your whole argument seems to be predicated on the idea that 'feminist' is somehow an exclusionary term, or possibly that we're all Nazis for some reason you don't see fit to explain. I (and a huge, vast, overwhelming majority of the people who self-identify as feminists) disagree with you. If it bothers you that much, don't call yourself a feminist. No skin off my nose.

Oh, and two more things:

1. 'You're too stupid to bother arguing with' is not actually an argument and does not mean that you're right.

2. Whining about ad hominem attacks one moment and calling someone a cunt the next? Really not classy.

On equitable distribution: 50% is perfectly reasonable, it's what they were each living on while married, in a sense. Anything else and you're providing the wrong kind of disincentive for whoever gets less to divorce. I don't know the statistics, aren't most married men outearning their wives? I understand the second or third derivative of that statistic is negative, but the raw number still holds. Thus inequitable distribution amounts to using the power of the purse to get women to stay in unhappy marriages.

Again, I suspect we'd have wildly different estimates of how many men would use whateve leverage they have to force their wives to stay married to them if they could versus how many women would force their husbands to, and I honestly don't know which of us is closer to the mark. But that is at least in the abstract how, given the way things actually are, equitable distribution is fairer than the alternative (i.e., it doesn't stick it to men in general, it sticks it to bad men).

Atheism has never been defined as anything other than "lack of a belief in a god".

You haven't been in a lot of religious debates, have you? There's considerable debate about what "atheist" actually means and who counts as one. However, I suspect you're really more of an antitheist. This is basically what happens when people [paradoxically] turn atheism into a fundamentalist religion. Antitheists are to atheists as female supremacists are to feminists and the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity - a small but overly attention-grabbing subset which strongly colors an outsider's opinion of the whole despite being rather unrepresentative of that whole.

I say this as someone who self-describes as a "Zen Nihilist". Some people would call my philosophy to be a form of atheism, and some wouldn't. And some people would call that term redundant because "Zen is inherently nihilist". And then most Zen philosophers would take offense to that...

Hershele, I have to eat some crow. I've been repeating information provided to me by my lawyer, back around 1999, on equitable distribution. I was searching for statistics, which are very hard to find, and finally I found out my information was false at least as of this 1990 study by the Florida Supreme Court.

My lawyer gave me to understand that women get more almost inevitably. Maybe he was covering for not being a very good lawyer. I would like to know more about that statistic; e.g. does it include divorces back to the dawn of time? When does it go up to? If it was culled from data from 1900 to 1970, for example, I'd like to see something more recent. But anyway it's the best I can find right now, so I have to conclude that my equitable distribution complaint was unfounded.

If anyone has more current or more general (not just Florida) stats I'd be interested.

While it nice to see that there are reasonable feminists out there that believe in the items listed here I'm not gonna pretend that the feminists (or however you want to call them) that do push the ideas listed don't exist.

Mousie00:"Right now MRAs tend to be a bunch of creepy cranks and lunatics, but that's pretty much my impression of the earliest feminists as well. I think cranks and lunatics tend to start just about any movement, good or bad."

Yes. I sometime giggle when people try to compare present day feminists with present day MRAs and try to pretend that feminists haven't had a 40 some odd year head start.

If the men's-rights movement ever settles down to be like the feminists of 2010 but about men (and with a much smaller scope, since there's less oppression of men by any non-crazy definition of "oppression") I'll join. I don't like anyone being oppressed. I think I'll disassociate myself from people who think that if they have to pay child support they should be free to abuse their children, however.

Danny, the question isn't about existing, the question is about representing Feminism. Numerically, I think the reasonable feminists have it, and I think they're closer to the ideological center of the movement as a whole (or, rather, the ideological center of the movement is with the reasonable people, not the misandrists).

But it depends what you think of as reasonable. I have a feeling you consider anyone who points out any institutional sexism or acknowledges the existence of male privilege in any way to be unreasonable. Or anyone not satisfied with legal equality and willing to passively wait for society to catch up.

"I don't like anyone being oppressed. I think I'll disassociate myself from people who think that if they have to pay child support they should be free to abuse their children, however."I can understand that. I don't bother associating with feminists who seem to spend more time speaking on the lives of men that actually trying to understand the lives of men.

"Danny, the question isn't about existing, the question is about representing Feminism. Numerically, I think the reasonable feminists have it, and I think they're closer to the ideological center of the movement as a whole (or, rather, the ideological center of the movement is with the reasonable people, not the misandrists)."Unfortunately even the "reasonable ones" are not immune to doing some of the very things they say they're against. And even if there are more reasonable feminists than reasonable MRAs that doesn't mean we should all flock to feminism.

"But it depends what you think of as reasonable. I have a feeling you consider anyone who points out any institutional sexism or acknowledges the existence of male privilege in any way to be unreasonable."And your feeling is wrong. Not only do I think there's nothing wrong with pointing out those things but I agree they need to be pulled out. The unreasonable comes into play when you have those who define male privilege then go on to intentionally limit the scope of male oppression (and female privilege) for the sake of trying to act as if being a male is a cake walk. (Such as the earlier part of your comment in which you are okay with MRAs existing as long as feminists get to define their size and scope, that's not enough to call you unreasonable but your implication there is unreasonable.) The unreasonable also comes out when I see people try to cherry pick the problems of society that need to be stamped out because some of them actually work in their favor so they try to protect them.

"Or anyone not satisfied with legal equality and willing to passively wait for society to catch up."Oh no I don't want anyone to wait passively for actually equality. And you know why? Because I myself don't want to wait for it so how fair is it for me to expect anyone else to do so? Unlike you who want to give feminists unlimited room while making sure MRAs only get equality in the ways you approve of.

Here's a list of female privileges (http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/06/08/female-privilege/). Not perfect or iron clad but I think worth talking about.

Now about male oppression. Just as women have their only limited boxes of what's "okay" for their gender men have boxes as well.

In a husband/wife relationship just as society expects the wife to abandon all desire for a career to become an internal provider (as in inside the home) society expects the husband to abandon all desire to be a family man to become an external provider (as in outside the home).

When it comes to acceptable sexuality there are restraints on what is okay for men just as with women. Women are expected to be all virtuous and never really want sex while men are supposed to consumed by insatiable lust. Deviate from either and the shaming begins.

The way you ask that I think you're expecting me to try to claim that the harm done to men and women is equal. Really don't care who has it worse because figuring that out won't get us any closer to the answers.

Danny, I think most feminists want men murdered less than they are now.

I skimmed the list, since I had an idea of the jist going in, and a lot of what I saw is "patriarchy" or, if you don't like the word, the result of social forces most feminists are fighting against. I'm open to the argument that, having skimmed, what I saw wasn't representative, and moreover that I cherry-picked without really intending to.

I mean, Holly, if I may use your comment section to fisk this a little (and now I'm overtly cherry-picking):

3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.Three things here: First, this is chivalry; the other side of that coin is the conflation of women with children and the notion that women must be protected from life's hardships such as financial independence and high political or corporate positions. Second, feminists, again, don't typically want anyone to get beaten up. Third, men don't typically beat up women, but they don't typically rape men (actually, men typically don't do either to anybody, and women even less so); I have a feeling it's substantially the same personality issue that leads to both forms of behavior.

6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.Again, such a lot to unpack. Which hierarchy are we talking about? Corporate hierarchy? I don't think this is true; indeed, people at the extremes of this sort of mindset think women as a whole are less worthy because of the (often lingering) effects of the glass ceiling. So superficially this seems about right, but I think the worthiness=place in the hierarchy as applied to women gets lost in general sexism.

Difference feminism, which is gender essentialism with its heart in the right place, would say that we shouldn't judge women on male criteria such as success, but I don't think this item is generally something most types of femism support.

7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.Chivalry again.

22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.Are men shamed for being sexually inactive? Anyway, this is cherry-picking on the part of the compiler of the list. Change "for being sexually inactive" to "for my level of sexual activity" and it's somewhere between not true and outright false.

Hershele:First, this is chivalry; the other side of that coin is the conflation of women with children and the notion that women must be protected from life's hardships such as financial independence and high political or corporate positions.I'm all for looking at both sides of the coin but most of the time both sides are not looked at when talking about chivalry. Usually the conversation stops right at what you mention. Rarely any mention of the unfair burden put on men to have their masculinity and manhood judged by other people's standards of what a real man is supposed to do. In fact based on most of the discussion on chivalry I've seen from feminists you would think that chivalry only harms women, which is frankly not true.

Again, such a lot to unpack. Which hierarchy are we talking about? Corporate hierarchy? I don't think this is true...Just as women are judged on their beauty and physical attractiveness to the point of being unfair men are judged on their success to the point of being unfair. That's why you have women who go to drastic measures to look good and men who go to drastic measures to be successful in the job place. That's why you have women who won't date a man that can't totally support them so they don't have to work and men who won't date a woman that isn't in the greatest fitness while not holding themselves to the same standard.

Are men shamed for being sexually inactive?Yes. And your doubt sounds like cherry picking of your own. Supposedly talking about how men are shamed for not being sexually active is cherry picking but talking about shaming women for being sexually active is insightful commentary?

I fought back the urge to accuse you of trying to spin those items into making women look like the victims and men look like evil perpetrators. Such an accusation wouldn't really get us anywhere.

I also notice that you say what feminists are generally for and against in regards to how men are treated. Frankly I don't hear those things enough from feminists. Or at least the voices saying those things just aren't loud enough. So instead of waiting for feminists to show a level of concern for men that meets my satisfaction (because frankly after some serious thinking that's an unfair expectation) I've decided to just say those things myself.

Danny - It's true, life isn't perfect for men. In fact in some ways it kind of sucks having those rigid gender roles for men. Good thing feminists are against rigid gender roles. We sure as hell aren't responsible for them.

So instead of waiting for feminists to show a level of concern for men that meets my satisfaction (because frankly after some serious thinking that's an unfair expectation) I've decided to just say those things myself.Asking feminists to be concerned about men is like asking a Meals On Wheels operation to be concerned about animal abuse. They're both worthy causes, and some individuals may support both, but they're different things and Meals On Wheels is perfectly justified in saying "hey, nothing against the animals, sounds like someone should go fight that fight, but that's just not our thing."

I also notice that you say what feminists are generally for and against in regards to how men are treated. Frankly I don't hear those things enough from feminists.You haven't said anything against the ways women get the short end of the stick. I have as much basis for assuming you're a misogynist as you have for assuming feminism is misandry.

Holly:"Good thing feminists are against rigid gender roles. We sure as hell aren't responsible for them."Well its good to know that most of you aren't. Doesn't give the nasty ones that perpetuate those roles and act like they aren't there a free pass but oh well.

"Asking feminists to be concerned about men is like asking a Meals On Wheels operation to be concerned about animal abuse. They're both worthy causes, and some individuals may support both, but they're different things and Meals On Wheels is perfectly justified in saying "hey, nothing against the animals, sounds like someone should go fight that fight, but that's just not our thing."Exactly. I grew tired of seeing feminists simultaneously taking credit for helping men while silencing men so I just decided to say something myself. I'm glad we agree here.

Hershele:"You haven't said anything against the ways women get the short end of the stick. I have as much basis for assuming you're a misogynist as you have for assuming feminism is misandry. "Maybe not here but I do on my blog. And for the record I don't think I said that feminism equals misandry. If I thought that I would certainly be anti-feminist. Mind you there is misandry within it but its not the whole (or at least I hope its not). I'm merely doing exactly what many feminists have told me I should do. Speak up for myself.

And as for not talking about how women get the short end of the stick there is already a movement that's over 40 years old for that. And even then I don't actively deny that they do.

1) "Should feminism speak up for men when men get the short end of the stick?"

No. Feminism is about advancement of women, as the name says.

2) "Should feminists speak up for men when men get the short end of the stick?"

Yes. Everybody should. Feminists are people, and people don't get to be unjust to some people because they are working for the benefit of other people. Everybody should be MRA in the same sense in which everybody should be feminists. Be alert to and support justice for each, and don't support punishing Person A of Group X for the actions or privilege of Person B of Group X.

(It seems to me that Holly already sticks up for men on the few occasions when she sees them get the short end of the stick. On the other hand, if Figleaf sees men getting fed shit sandwiches, he'll only talk about how the smell on their breath affects women.)

BTW a little more anecdotal evidence that I was all wrong on the equitable distribution thing; my new lawyer suggested that I could do better than the split my wife proposed and I agreed to as fair, as the law would consider the house I owned before marriage to still be mostly mine. Further, as we didn't get around to changing the deed to both our names until several years into the marriage, I could push on that technicality to reduce her share, if I were a bastard; in my case and most cases I can imagine doing that would be injustice. With men's higher salaries, that injustice will probably affect women more often, in line with the findings of the FL court in the study linked earlier.